1. Field of the Invention
The invention disclosed herein relates to a device for filtering open drains and thereby preventing them from being clogged. More particularly this invention relates to a device for filtering drains, the drains including .[.of.]. at least one .Iadd.channel or passageway, such as a .Iaddend.gutter .Iadd.or ditch, .Iaddend.with side walls and an open top side and at least one .[.drain hole positioned therein.]. .Iadd.outlet in communication with the channel.Iaddend., the drain .[.comprising an elongated tube containing said hole and.]. allowing .[.said.]. water to flow .[.therethrough, such as the gutter and down spouts on buildings.]. .Iadd.through the channel and into the outlet. Examples of drain systems where the invention is especially useful are the gutter and downspout of a building, a ditch leading to a culvert under a roadway, or the like.Iaddend..
2. Overview of Prior Art
Since the invention of the rain gutter and .[.having them.]. .Iadd.its use .Iaddend.on a building with trees nearby.Iadd., .Iaddend.the problem of clogging the down spouts with leaves and other debris has plagued homeowners and building managers alike. Tree leaves, small branches and other debris fall from trees, particularly as a result of high winds and rain. When this happens, the roofs of the buildings accumulate the debris.Iadd., .Iaddend.and in the event of rain or melting snow.Iadd., .Iaddend.the debris is washed into the gutters and finally carried with the water to the down spouts. When this happens the down spouts typically get clogged with the debris, damming up the spout .Iadd.and .Iaddend.forcing the water to fill up in the gutter until it flows over the sides, voiding the function of the gutter.
Numerous devices have been developed in an attempt to meet the need for providing a debris-free downspout. To date, only marginal success has been reached. One group of devices incorporate laying a material over the top of the gutter, such as is disclosed by Antenen in U.S. Pat. No. .Badd.4,965,969. The material is porous so that the water can get through but the debris cannot get into the gutter. Variations in this approach are offered by Rees in U.S. Pat. No. 4,841,686; Knowles in U.S. Pat. No. 4,769,957; Wolf in U.S. Pat. No. 4,765,101; Davis in U.S. Pat. No. 4,745,710; Lassiter in U.S. Pat. No. 4,418,504 and Abramson in U.S. Pat. No. 3,741,398. The general improvements in the later patents, from the earlier disclosed, is a trend toward simplification. The overall shortcoming is that each of these devices must be custom-made to each individual dwelling. Never did any of these devices take into account the fact that the debris is not damaging in the gutter. The gutter is open on the top to catch the flow off of the roof of the building. If excessive debris gets into the gutter, it will simply fall out. It is the downspout where the problem lies. This is an enclosed tube. If it gets full, it clogs and does not allow the runoff water to flow through. Preventing the debris from getting into the gutter is a complicated and unnecessarily expensive way to solve the problem.
Modifications to the afore mentioned methods have been made. The afore mentioned disclosures utilize a substantially flat material which accepts the downward slope of the roof to keep the debris from accumulating on the structure. The problem being in a heavy rain a portion of the runoff water will not fall through the porous material and run off the structure, oblivious to the gutter. Williams, Jr. in U.S. Pat. No. .Badd.5,095,666 and Dressier in U.S. Pat. No. 5,044,581 addressed this concern by making a separate variation in an upwardly curved section of material beginning in the area of the side of the gutter which is closest to the building. This aligns the porous components of the material with the direction of flow of the water, decreasing the overrun potential of the water. In a similar fashion Manoogian, Jr. proposed a trough which extended into the gutter in U.S. Pat. No. 5,072,551. This enhanced the flow of the water into the gutter .[.in as.]. .Iadd.as in .Iaddend.the two latter mentioned disclosures. An obvious problem is where the section designed to catch the water will also catch the debris. If the flat debris, such as leaves, coat this section, the .[.water could.]. .Iadd.debris may .Iaddend.be .[.made.]. impermeable to the .[.material and.]. .Iadd.water so that the water .Iaddend.again .[.defy.]. .Iadd.defies .Iaddend.the gutter all together. These .Iadd.devices .Iaddend.also must run the length of the gutter in order to be effective, .[.therefore the oversight of the.]. .Iadd.so that once again, .Iaddend.specific attention .Iadd.is not given .Iaddend.to the downspout .[.is also avoided.]. .Iadd.where the real problem exists.Iaddend..
Attempts have been made to clean the gutter by .[.use.]. .Iadd.using .Iaddend.mechanical means. Johnson and Ruttenberg in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,745,709 and 4,253,281 respectively provide ways of cleaning the gutters without a ladder and rake. Johnson utilizes a flexible liner which can be inverted to dispel the debris out of the gutter. The obvious disadvantage being, unless the liner is cleaned continuously, debris will flow into the downspout. Ruttenberg combined the ideas of the material permeable to water but not tree debris, spanning the width of the gutter and made it movable, thereby providing a means for remotely removing the leaves. The maintenance of attending to the device along with the unnecessary expense makes it impractical. Ruttenberg also disclosed a method of moving the material utilizing wind power and a fan to eliminate the necessity of physically actuating the device.Iadd., .Iaddend.but a mechanically rotating mechanism subjected to environmental conditions over prolonged periods of time make the feasibility of the wind generating enough power to move long stretches of material unlikely.
Beam in U.S. Pat. No. 4,604,837 and Elko et. al. in U.S. Pat. No. 4,455,791 both disclose methods of having the gutter completely covered by a rigid member and using the surface tension of the water to pull the water without the accompanying debris into the gutter. This system only works when the runoff water is at a minimum. During heavy downpours the device is of little value as a gutter system.
With all of the afore mentioned devices attachment to the roof of the dwelling is necessary. Beecheft et al. and Hunt address these shortcomings in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,242,591 and 5,103,601 respectively. The devices are similar in that the material .[.is.]. proposed .[.of .]. .Iadd.is .Iaddend.a mesh material which is formed into a geometric shape and .[.fit.]. .Iadd.fits .Iaddend.longitudinally along the length of the gutter. In this, the debris that will accumulate is able to blow or run off the top surface of the device and allow the water to fall therein. As before, this does not address the unnecessary complication and expense of custom-made devices to cover the entire length of the gutter systems.
This problem was addressed by Williams in U.S. Pat. No. .Badd.4,472,274. Here Williams proposed a drain spout attachment that included a .[.grade.]. .Iadd.grate .Iaddend.on an incline sloping down to a open section of the device. The water and debris was allowed to flow into the down spout where it is separated by the .[.grading.]. .Iadd.grating.Iaddend.. The debris would fall out of the opening and the water would flow through the .[.grading.]. .Iadd.grating .Iaddend.and into the down-spout. The problem with this is the lack of retrofitability with existing gutter systems. Gutter systems would have to be rebuilt or replaced to incorporate the device and the flowing debris must still traverse a limited size opening to get into the device from the gutter. What debris makes it that far must be carried out of an opening of very limited physical dimension, due to the size restriction of the downspout. If the device clogs there, very little is saved.